Amazing, eh? How did they possibly know back in 1980 that COCOFEST would become a thing?

But actually, it’s just a random message, and not a hidden message at all. I learned of this trick from this video by 8-Bit Show and Tell that claims to share a hidden anti-Microsoft Easter egg in Commodore 64 BASIC… and then reveals how the prank works.

A hidden anti-Microsoft Easter egg in Commodore 64 BASIC! Or not…

If you tried to run that program on other flavors of BASIC, it probably would not work. It certainly does not produce the expected results on a CoCo.

This was the first video from 8-Bit Show and Tell I ever saw, and it’s lead me down quick a rabbit hole trying things he demonstrates on the Commodore computers on our beloved CoCo. And it all started with this random video that YouTube randomly showed me.

Monkeys and Shakespeare

“…a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.”

Wikipedia

We are just using BASIC’s RND() random number generator to simulate a monkey at a typewriter, and using short words instead of the complete works of Shakespeare.

It’s much quicker this way.

As previously discussed, the RND function generates a series of numbers that are not random. Each time you power up a CoCo, for instance, this code will produce the same “random” numbers the first time you run it:

In order to change the series of numbers, you pass a negative value into the RND() function, and that series will be used. If you do X=RND(-1), you will then get the same series of random values every time. If you do X=RND(-42), you get a different set of random numbers every time.

Magic!

Or math. But math is hard, and magic is just frustrating.

The monkey simulator

But how do you find which random seed value will give you the random numbers you want in the order you want them? The original prankster used brute-force trial and error.

A program can be designed that first seeds the RND function with -1, then generates a series of random numbers and tests to see if they are what it is looking for. In the case of the C64 version, it needed to see the numbers that represented the characters of the word followed by a ZERO to terminate the string.

If it did not work, it tries a seed of -2, and so on. This could take hours or days, and there is no guarantee the exact series of numbers will be found.

I decided to write a CoCo version of this monkey typewriter simulator, but I made some changes.

First, I figured looking for “W”+”O”+”R”+”D” was more work than just looking for “W”+”O”+”R”+”D” without a 0 byte at the end. That should speed up the search, but require an extra bit of data in the display program since it now needs to know how many random values to use (the length of the word).

The C64 version looked from A to the highest letter used (“BILL GATES SUCKS” scans A to U, though it doesn’t really need to try to find A since the earliest letter is B.) I figured that looking for A to Z (worst case, 26 choices) would be more work than just looking at the range of letters actually used in the word. For instance, finding “ABC” in a repeating random series of 26 numbers seems less likely than finding “ABC” if you were only using 3 random numbers. I made my generator look for a range covering only the letters being used. “CAT” would need numbers from “C” to “T”. “DOG” would need “D” to “O”. “ALACAZAM” would need “A” to “Z”. This meant my display program also needed to know the starting letter value and range value, in addition to the word length.

My version is not as clean and tidy as the C64 original

Here is the program I came up with. You can type in a word and it will present the range of letters it will look for, and then start searching until it finds it (or, weeks later, it has not and you give up):

I tried to find “COCOFEST” together, but after days and days of running, it still hadn’t. Perhaps it would have found it if I was searching the entire A-Z range versus just C-T. It’s random-ish, after all.

Perhaps one of you will take this concept and recreate the C64 version, looking for A-Z and a zero. Maybe that works better. I did not try.

Perhaps one of you will start compiling a dictionary of random words and we can use this as a secret decoder ring for passing cryptic messages to each other on Facebook.

Perhaps this will just be a passing random thought and we will never speak of it again.

But knowing me and this site, I expect we will speak of it again. Especially if I get any good comments to this post.

There is a time and ELSE for everything

After I dove into ELSE efficiency, and then dove into it a bit deeper, I realized one of the major things that slows down BASIC is having to scan to the end of the line in order to find the next line.

In part 7 of my Optimizing Color BASIC series, I noticed that a GOTO or GOSUB was much slower if there were things on the line after it:

10 GOTO 100:REM THIS GOES TO THE INPUT ROUTINE

When BASIC is searching for a line number, each line entry has a size which lets it skip ahead to the next line if the line number did not match. But, once BASIC is processing a line, it does not track that. If the parser gets one token in to a line and it has to GOTO somewhere else, it has to scan forward until it finds the end of the line, then it can start scanning line numbers and skipping lines again.

Thus, one should not put comments on the ends of lines. They have to be parsed through. It is much faster to put comments on their own lines, though that takes up a more memory since each new line number takes 5 bytes.

This is one of the reasons this…

30 IF Z=1 THEN 100 ELSE IF Z=2 THEN 200 ELSE IF Z=3 THEN 300 ELSE IF Z=4 THEN 400

…can be slower than…

30 IF Z=1 THEN 100
31 IF Z=2 THEN 200
32 IF Z=3 THEN 300
33 IF Z=4 THEN 400

In the first example, if Z=1, BASIC still has to scan through all the remaining bytes of the line until it finds the end. In the second example, BASIC gets the line number then is already at the end and can immediately start scanning.

Thus, to add to my previous ELSE discussion, we should stop doing this:

30 IF X=1 THEN X=X+1:GOTO 70

If X is NOT 1, BASIC still has to scan through the rest of the line before it can check whatever happens next. Instead, it ican be much faster to do this:

30 IF X=1 THEN 100
...
100 X=X+1:GOTO xxx

There is a caveat to this. Things in BASIC are quite predictable. This change makes it faster to get to line 100 to do the actual work (X=X+1). BUT, from line 100 it could be much slower to get back to the top if there were a bunch of lines before the target line. If it’s a GOTO near the top of the program, it’s fast. If it’s a loop around 500, and you try to GOTO 500, that could be much slower if it had to scan through all the lines from 10 to 499 to get there.

This is when organizing code locations comes in very important, but that is a discussion for another time.

If Z=4, the code will get there much faster since there is less for it to scan through after each Z check.

The location of where the work is done (later in the program or back at the top) is the only thing that can make this slower (or faster). Once a program gets large enough, moving things around may help speed up certain things but will slow down other things. I guess, much like real estate, location matters.

I guess we can stop using ELSE, and stop doing work on IF lines. And that goes for things like this:

IF SC=1000 THEN LV=LV+1

At 1000 points, we get a new life! However, every time through that loop when SC is not 1000, BASIC has to skip over “THEN LV=LV+1”, wasting cycles. The savings would be huge over the life of that loop to just do:

IF SC=1000 THEN 1000

…and let 1000 handle LV=LV+1 and returning back with a GOTO. GOSUB might be better, but that might be slower for something like this since:

IF SC=1000 THEN GOSUB 1000

…has an extra token (and potentially spaces, if you use them for readability) versus:

IF SC=1000 THEN 1000

WHEN this code runs (SC=1000), it may be faster to GOSUB and RETURN than it would be to GOTO/GOTO. BUT, most of the time the main loop is running that code will not be called and parsing past the GOSUB will just be wasting time.

Someone must have thought it was important to include the input number (IN1, IN2 and IN3) — possibly so they would not need to look through defines to see what value goes to what input — so I kept those in my names.

But now, when I find this code months down the line, I’ll immediately know which function is most likely detecting that the robot is on fire.

Every since I first learned about the Max Headroom signal hijacking incident in 1987, I’ve been fascinated about it. There has been much coverage of this over the years, including some interesting “recreations” of behind-the-scenes footage.

There has even been a documentary about the incident. Here are some to check out:

However, one thing remains consistent when I watch videos that theorize on this, or read the REDDIT threads, etc. Most seem to think that this was an inside job (it probably was; would be the easiest explanation). But, most don’t seem to realize how much you could do with good home equipment back in the early 1980s, let alone towards the end of that decade.

1980s home video was better than folks think.

My first encounter with a home video recorder was one my father had — a huge, hulking machine with giant push buttons and a pop up tray to insert the VHS tape. This was around 1980 or 1981.

Over the years, he had all kinds of cool video equipment. We had an early video camera, which could hook to the VCR using an adapter box that would power the camera and turn it’s output into audio/video cables. This camera was an old-style camera that would leave streaks when you moved it past lights due to the way the image sensor worked. Early, ancient stuff!

Later he had a backpack-sized VHS unit that could be ran off a 12V power supply or battery, and we took it, and the external camera, to Walt Disney World in 1982. As a young teen, it took me and another kid to lug it around (one with the recorder strapped to him, and the other operating the camera). This was all consumer equipment.

He also had Betamax (then later a SuperBeta) equipment as well. Folks commenting don’t seem to remember that Beta was widespread for awhile — early video rental stores had both VHS and BETA movies available to rent.

HomeTV!

Before the FCC put and end to it, we had in-home TV stations! You could buy a box that would transmit video to a nearby TV. And by nearby, I mean down the block. My father would broadcast movies in the evenings and let the neighbors know so they could tune in and watch. And that TV transmitter box could be ran on batteries. I remember one Thanksgiving (? or maybe it was a Christmas ?) where I was walking around the festivities with the luggable VHS unit and camera, recording stuff while others watched what I was doing on the TV in the living room. I guess that was really cool, but it was all just normal stuff to me, having grown up around it.

And it kept getting better…

Each time my dad upgraded, the new equipment was even batter. I still have the full size SuperVHS camcorder my father gave me after he upgraded to 8mm video (and it still works!).

Back to Max

Back to the Max Headroom incident… a few things I want to say:

Often you say people say Max was autistic, or drunk, or just nervous. But why? It does not seem to have been a live recording. There is an edit in the middle of the video! At best, the first half could be live then they switch to a tape, or the first part could be a tape and they switch to live, but it would be much easier to just pre-record and hit PLAY on a VCR. Max may have been drunk, but the evidence suggests he wanted it that way or he could have just re-recorded everything.

The edit is often pointed out as being proof that he was a TV station insider because the edit is perfect. Look up “flying erase head.” You could buy VCRs that had this, and they would make seamless cuts from one recording to the next. They cost more, but you could buy a consumer recorder that had one. It was not anything magical or special. BUT, you didn’t even need one. That luggable portable VCR we had could often do really clean edits — even without a flying erase head! My dad edited so many productions using two of those units (including videos that ran at booths at boat shows, that I did computer graphics for, and even a travel video for the island of Belize, which I’d never heard of back then). We had another unit after that one which was not portable, but did edits so well I did STOP MOTION animation with it. Just a nice consumer VCR! You did NOT need professional equipment to get a clean edit.

As to how they hijacked the signal, TV and radio stations commonly had (and still do) their studios at one place, and beamed their broadcast signal to the remote transmitter. Theories say they were up on a tall building. But why? Every radio station remote with a MARTI unit could broadcast from car dealerships. Heck, the run down AM radio station I worked at in 1987 had one, and it was ancient. And TV stations would go “live” from remote events all the time from their news van. I think the folks who talked about a vehicle (why a van?) being used probably make more sense than climbing up a building. It would be far easier to just park somewhere near the receiving dish and beam a low power signal to it, but I only have experience with doing that with radio stations. (There would be a lot of other issues, since I believe the remote news van would be beaming a different type of signal to a special receiver, and would NOT be capable of sending in the broadcast signal.) But, getting a signal in between the studio and the remote transmitter location could be done from the ground. (Or from a building; but it seems far riskier to climb a building and set equipment up.)

In a city the size of Chicago, I have no doubt that cameras and transmitters and all kinds of video things were readily available to those who wanted them. The only magic part here is the equipment that was used to overpower the TV station’s broadcast signal. An insider would have information, but folks could buy a lot of used equipment like this even back then (before eBay). The requirement to have need a license to operate it did not prevent you from buying it. (Anyone could by a HAM radio, but it was illegal to use it without a license, for example, and we had a place where I grew up that sold police radios and such.)

So who knows. Insider (or at least someone from the industry) makes sense. HAM radio/electronics hobbyists? Sure, why not. But I wish folks would drop the claims of the clean edit as proof it was someone with professional equipment. At least the Oddity guy talked about it looking like it was on a VHS unit (though that was just because of the poor picture quality — the fact that it did such a lean edit shows it would have been a higher quality machine).

My recent return to exploring my old Commodore VIC-20 code has reminded me about the main reason I jumped ship to a Radio Shack TRS-80 Color Computer: Extended Color BASIC. The older CBM BASIC V2 used by the VIC was missing keywords like ELSE, and had no functions for graphics or sounds. While I am having a blast re-learning how to program VIC-20 games, I sure do miss things like ELSE.

But should I?

IF/THEN/ELSE versus IF/THEN versus ON/GOTO

Pop quiz time! Suppose you were trying to determine if you needed to move a game character up, down, left or right. Which is the faster way to handle four choices?

30 IF Z=1 THEN 100 ELSE IF Z=2 THEN 200 ELSE IF Z=3 THEN 400 ELSE IF Z=4 THEN 500

…or…

30 IF Z=1 THEN 100
31 IF Z=2 THEN 200
32 IF Z=3 THEN 400
33 IF Z=4 THEN 500

Of course, if the values were only 1, 2, 3 and 4, you wouldn’t do either. Instead, you might just do:

ON Z GOTO 100,200,300,400

…but for the sake of this question, assume the values are not in any kind of order that allows you to do that.

IF/THEN/Work/ELSE versus IF/THEN/WORK

Suppose you were a junior high kid learning to program and you wanted to update some player X/Y positions based on keyboard input. Which one of these would be faster?

30 IF Z=1 THEN X=X+1 ELSE IF Z=2 THEN X=X-1 IF Z=3 THEN Y=Y+1 IF Z=4 THEN Y=Y-1

…versus…

30 IF Z=1 THEN X=X+1
31 IF Z=2 THEN X=X-1
32 IF Z=3 THEN Y=Y+1
33 IF Z=4 THEN Y=Y-1

All is not fair

I should point out that the speed it takes to run these snippets depends on the value of Z. For the sake of this article, let’s assume no key is pressed, so Z is set to something that is not 1, 2, 3 or 4.

Obviously, when there are four IFs in a row (either in a single line with ELSE, or on separate lines), the order of the checks determines how fast you get to each one. If Z is 1, and that is the first IF check, that happens faster than if Z is 4 and the code has to check against 1, 2 and 3 before finally checking against 4.

The same thing applies in languages that use switch/case type logic, so the things that need to be the fastest or happen most often should be at the top of the list and checked before things that happen less often.

Because of this, to be fair, we should also check best case (Z=1) and worst case (Z=4) and see what that does.

Best versus Worst: FIGHT!

Let’s try some best and worst cases now. For this test, I’ll resolve the jumps to lines 100, 200, 300 and 400 by adding this:

100 GOTO 70
200 GOTO 70
300 GOTO 70
400 GOTO 70

That will greatly slow things down since we have to search forward to the new line, then it has to start back at the top of the program and search forward to find line 70. BUT, it will be consistent from test to test. I’ll add a “6 Z=1” or “6 Z=4” line.

elsetst1.bas (else): Z=1 produces 507. Z=4 produces 1058.

elsetst2.bas (separate): Z=1 produces 390. Z=4 produces 1053.

elsetst3.bas (on/goto): Z=1 produces 317. Z=4 produces 357.

Wow. ON/GOTO is really good at going places, best or worst case.

And what about the “doing work” stuff?

elsetst4.bas (else): Z=1 produces 632. Z=4 produces 633.

elsetst5.bas (separate): Z=1 produces 1171. Z=4 produces 1172.

In conclusion…

If you are using IF to go to some code, ON/GOTO is the fastest, following by separate lines. Even in the worst case, separate lines are still a tiny bit faster, which surprised me. I suspect it’s the time it takes to parse the ELSE versus a new line number. Retesting with all the spaces removed might change the results and make them closer.

But it does look like we need to stop doing “IF X=Y THEN ZZZ ELSE IF X=Y THEN ZZZ ELSE” unless we really need the extra bytes ELSE saves over a new line number.

And if you are trying to do work, ELSE seems substantially faster than separate line numbers. But, in both cases, best and worst case are very close. I believe this is a benchmark issue, since the time to scan a few lines is tiny compared to the time it takes to do something like “X=X+1”, and both best and worst case do the same amount of work. A better test would need to be performed.

Bonus

There is a way to speed up the separate line statements when doing work, especially for better case. Consider this:

By adding the GOTO, if line 30 is satisfied (Z=1), the parser can start searching for line 70 without having to do the check against Z three more times. But, when a case is not satisfied, it now has to parse through the GOTO token and a line number to find the end of the line, meaning that for worst case (Z=4) it should be a bit slower.

Let’s see if this works.

elsetst6.bas (separate/goto): Z=1 produces 544. Z=4 produces 1241.

Compare that to the previous version without the end line GOTOs:

elsetst5.bas (separate): Z=1 produces 1171. Z=4 produces 1172.

It looks like there’s a significant improvement for best case, and a slight decrease in performance for worst case (the overhead of skipping more characters to find the end of the line for the false conditions).

The more you know…

I guess I am learning quite a bit by revisiting the VIC-20 and having to do things without ELSE.

The VIC-20 uses programmable character based graphics, You can change the pixels that make up a letter “A” to be a small 8×8 icon of a spaceship, for instance. But, when you move that letter A to different spots on the screen, it jumps 8 pixels at a time making movement quite jerky (as demonstrated by all my VIC-20 programs):

Since I don’t have time to write a full article at the moment, I’ll share this small VIC-20 program and come back to discuss what it is doing, and why it is doing it, later.

You could also split that to two separate statements. One handling K=17 case, and then do ON K-38 GOTO 50,x,30 where x is just the line following the ON GOTO line.

don’t know about speed but you could also try ON K-16 GOTO 40,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,50,x,x,30 (also where x is the following line)

MiaM

In my example, I was getting keypress values back that represented left (17), right (39) and jump (41). By filling the ON/GOTO/GOSUB with bogus line values where the gaps are, you can now use ON/GOTO for non-sequential values. But, if the first number expected was a 17, that would be 17 dummy values at the start. Mia’s approach is to subtract that starting value, eliminating the need for 16 dummy values. Clever!

Clever, sure. But can it be benchmarked?

So how bad is this with speed? Let’s find out.

First, for the dummy lines we will just put nothing between the commas. That will be parsed as a zero, which is bad if any of those values are hit since going to 0 would restart the program, but since we are just testing and can control the value, it will give us the fastest way to parse a long ON/GOTO/GOSUB. Using real lines numbers will only be slower.

Best case (17) reports 504 and worst case (41) reports 1128. Can there really be that much more overhead to skip two extra IF/THENs? It seems so. In this example, the long ON/GOTO is faster in worst case. Interesting. If worst case is a button not used that often (“smart bomb”), IF/THEN may be the best option, but if all buttons are used equally, there’s probably a point where a long ON/GOTO makes more sense.

But wait … there’s more!

Rob’s idea of using an array to translate the non-sequential values into sequential numbers is a fun one. It uses more memory, and trades the time it takes to do an array lookup for the time it takes to parse a long ON/GOTO/GOSUB line.

Since the largest value we need to check for is 41, I did a DIM K(41). That will allow for values from 0 to 41.

Best case (17) gives us 432! Faster than the manual IF/THEN check!

Worse case (41) gives us 432 … Really? ON/GOTO is really fast with just a few choices. It would be slower if there were dozens and you wanted the one at the end.

The downside of this approach is the memory it took for an array of 42 (0-41) variables. Doing something like this:

NEW:CLEAR
PRINT MEM
DIM K(41)
PRINT MEM

…shows me 22823 and 22606. That’s 217 bytes being taken by the 42 K array entries. (There is an entry reserved for the array itself, then each array element takes 5 bytes, I believe. It’s been awhile since I wrote my String Theory articles which I think looked into how variables are stored.)

This may be the fastest approach if you have a few hundred bytes available to use for this. On a VIC-20 with 3583 bytes free on startup, if I had memory left when I was done with my normal IF/THEN version, I could retrofit it with this approach and use that extra available RAM to speed up my program a tad.

The theory so far…

When we last left off, I had just described my theory about how my prototype Sky-Ape-Er game loaded as just one file which contained a custom character set — without being contained in DATA statements or anywhere in the BASIC code.

My theory was that I modified BASIC’s “start of variables” pointer (which normally points to just past the end of the BASIC code) so it was after the memory where the custom characters were stored. When saved, the file would contain the entire range of memory including those custom characters. When the program was LOADed and ran, the first thing it had to do was set the “start of variables” pointer back to where it needed to be, just after the BASIC code.

Today I want to test that theory by trying to create a standalone BASIC program that contains custom character set data. I am going to use the excellent CBM prg Studio development environment to make a BASIC project that will have three things:

A custom character set. I will use the editor to export the characters out as DATA statements into a BASIC file.

That new file will be turned in to a program that will READ the DATA statements and POKE the values into RAM memory.

Finally, I will have a simple test program that will do the necessary POKEs to enable RAM characters and animate them.

Since I haven’t owned a VIC-20 since 1983, I am going to do all of this in the VICE VIC-20 emulator. To do it like I did it back in 1982, I am going to use a virtual cassette tape for program storage. I could probably do this easier using an emulated disk drive, but never had a disk drive on my VIC-20 and I want to keep this as virtually real as possible.

Except for the whole part of using a Mac and virtual PC for development, of course.

Step 1: Custom characters and loader program.

Using CBM prg Studio’s character set editor, I created a few custom characters:

VIC-20 custom character set test in CBM prg Studio.

I then used the “Character Set -> Export -> To Listing” option to output the DATA statements containing those characters.

I then added the following code to load the DATA statements into memory, and display them to verify they work.

Lines 4 and 6 – These POKEs are used to protect the characters in memory so BASIC will not override them. They set the highest memory location that BASIC and strings can use. I set them to 7168, the address where the custom characters load.

Line 10 to 20 – FOR/NEXT loop of READ and POKE the first 8 bytes where character RAM will be. This is where the “@” symbol is (character 0).

Line 30 to 35 – These POKEs clear out the “space” character in the custom character set. I do this so my DATA statements don’t have to contain all the characters up to space.

Line 40 to 55 – Clear screen then print reverse text (which will still show up even after we switch to RAM character mode) and the custom characters.

Line 60 – Set VIC chip to use RAM starting at 7168 for custom characters. At this point, the screen will show my custom characters, and the reverse video should appear as normal text.

Line 65 and 70 – Wait for key to be pressed.

Line 75 – Set VIC chip to use normal ROM area for characters.

Line 80 – Print the two bytes that represent the last memory location used by the character set. These will be POKEd into 45 and 46 before SAVING the demo program later.

Line 85 – End.

Line 1000 to 1110 – Each line has eight bytes that make up a custom character.

Here is what it looks like when it runs:

VIC-20 custom character set demo.

Then when you press enter, it disables the custom characters and you will see it says “CHAR:” in reverse view with letters a-i and @ where the custom characters were. It then prints two numbers, which I need to write down. Those numbers represent the address of the end of the custom characters my test program uses.

I will build this into a “.prg” file, and then load that into VICE. Next, I will “Create and attach an empty tape image” (I called mine “Custom Char Demo.tap“) and then save this loader program to that virtual tape:

SAVE "CHAR SET LOAD"

Step 2: Program to use the custom characters.

The next part will be a standalone program that will make use of these characters. I am creating a simple demo where spinning bricks fall from the sky and a player character on a sidewalk below has to dodge them. Except nothing happens if a brick hits the player because this is just a demo.

Here is what it is doing… Actually, I’ll skip the demo logic and just mention a few important things:

Line 1000 – This prints the programs’ current end (start of variables). Since I need the program to restore this when it loads (after being saved with the custom characters), I can load this program and “RUN 1000” to get those values. I then change the POKEs in line 2 to match those values. Thus, when the real program is loaded, it will fix those pointers which will get messed up by the SAVE process.

Thus, I would load this program into memory (but NOT run it) and do “RUN 1000” and note those numbers. I changed the POKEs on line 2 to match those values. Then I saved this after the “CHAR SET TEST” program as:

SAVE "CHAR SET TEST"

Step 3: Save the all-in-one test and charset file.

Now I reset the virtual VIC and rewind the virtual tape. Here are the steps:

LOAD and RUN the “CHAR SET LOAD” program to get the character set in memory. I make a note of the two numbers printed out at the end.

LOAD (but DO NOT run) the “CHAR SET TEST” program.

With the TEST program in memory, I do the following POKEs to change the end of BASIC pointer:POKE 45,X:POKE 46,Y…where X is the first number the loader program printed and Y is the second number the loader program printed.

I now can SAVE the test program and it should save all of the BASIC and continue saving until it gets to the end of RAM.

SAVE "CHAR SET DEMO"

Step 4: Test!

After a reboot, and rewind of the virtual tape, I try loading the “CHAR SET DEMO” program and running it…

VIC-20 error when loading my character set demo program.

Oh no! My theory is not correct. Something is still wrong. Running this program produces parts of the custom character, but not all. It’s clear I am off somewhere.

Does anyone know a plug-in or method to convert a preformatted block into a code block? Since the Gutenberg editor was introduced, there has been a new type of block specially for code. All my old articles use with preformatted or a plug-in. I want to go in and clean them all up and use the current, modern WordPress features.